HeroicKatora

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by HeroicKatora 2y ago

   Thank you for re-validating the numbers on your end, it's indeed very possible. There's been quite a few improvements in those versions. Though the effect size does not quite fit with most of the optimizations I can recall, maybe
2. 2.▲
   by HeroicKatora 2y ago

   I couldn't quite replicate those numbers (rustc 1.78, gcc 14, g++ 14) with a recent state. On my machine (Ryzen 9 7900X, LVM on NVMe) it's rustc 60-80ms, gcc 20-30ms and tcc in 2ms. Intererestingly, g++ is still 200ms on that mach
3. 3.▲
   by HeroicKatora 2y ago

   That statement means the comittee does not want to stop it from being developed. The question is, has it? They mean a specific implementation could work as portable assembler, mirroring djb's request for an 'unsurprising' C c
4. 4.▲
   by HeroicKatora 2y ago

   These are aspiration statements, not a factual judgment of what that standard or its existing implementations actually are. At least they do not cover all implementations nor define precisely what they cover. Note the immediate next stateme
5. 5.▲
   by HeroicKatora 2y ago

   It could be read as a play on a particular movie monologue, intentional or not. Dr. Ford in Westworld Season 1, ep 10. Possibly adapted from prior stories. > you [people; …] cannot change. Cause you're human afterall. […] So I began